Hi folks, After posting that WindCreek.com tribal immunity court case earlier today, I noticed a posting by the EFF today on a related tribal immunity issue, in relation to patents: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/selling-patents-sovereign-nations-shou... A large drug company is attempting to game the patent system by pretending to "sell" some patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe. Unlike a normal "sale", in this sham transaction, the Mohawk tribe would receive money from Allergan! And, the tribe would be expected to assert immunity in the event its patents are challenged by others at the Patent Office. "This deal has significant ramifications for the patent system if it is successful. As one judge described the deal: What Allergan seeks is the right to continue to enjoy the considerable benefits of the U.S. patent system without accepting the limits that Congress has placed on those benefits through the administrative mechanism for canceling invalid patents." The parallels to our own work with the mutual jurisdiction clause is evident (both in the IGO case, and in the interrelated UK "cause of action" situation too). The EFF made a brief that is very comparable to the "in rem" Option #6 proposal in this very PDP: "On November 30, 2017, EFF and Public Knowledge submitted a brief arguing that the Patent Office has all the authority it needs to continue the inter partes review proceeding, despite the Tribe’s sovereign immunity. We argued that the proceeding was not one that required the Tribe’s presence at all, meaning sovereign immunity had no application." (i.e. that's what Option #6 accomplishes, removing the need to consider immunity at all, because the dispute doesn't require the IGO's presence if filed in rem against a domain itself) Like in our work, they're dealing with an "edge case" that might rarely come into play, and might end up be closed off: "It may turn out that this dispute is irrelevant in the short term, as after the deal was announced, a federal court invalidated the patents (that decision is on appeal). Regardless of the outcome with respect to the Restasis patents, however, it is clear that other patent holders are engaging in similar deals [PDF] with sovereign tribes. EFF is pushing back against these deals as an improper assertion of sovereign immunity." This also plays into the point that Paul Tattersfield has raised, i.e. what to do with regards to IGOs who are "cybersquatting", with TM owners being denied relief! While an IGO per se might not normally do this, one can imagine someone creative cutting a deal with an entity like an Indian Tribe to conduct large scale cybersquatting operations, and then invoking immunity as a defense even from the UDRP/URS itself (since the UDRP/URS are supposed to consider applicable national law, e.g. see section 15(a) of the UDRP rules, "15. (a) A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." when rendering their verdicts, they might decide that the Tribe could assert immunity withinthe UDRP/URS itself), before it ever got to a court. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/